{"id":257154,"date":"2025-11-07T09:20:11","date_gmt":"2025-11-07T13:20:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/?p=257154"},"modified":"2025-11-07T09:20:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-07T13:20:12","slug":"full-judgement-judge-rules-attorney-andrew-o-kola-not-immune-from-negligence-suit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/full-judgement-judge-rules-attorney-andrew-o-kola-not-immune-from-negligence-suit\/","title":{"rendered":"FULL JUDGEMENT: Judge Rules Attorney Andrew O. Kola Not Immune from Negligence Suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

High Court Judge Jan Drysdale has ruled that attorney Andrew O. Kola cannot claim legal immunity in a professional negligence lawsuit brought by businessman Patrick \u201cPaddy\u201d Prendergast, rejecting arguments that his conduct was protected as part of his role as an advocate in court.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The decision, delivered on October 27, 2025, stems from a dispute in which Prendergast alleged that Kola\u2019s failure to file a defence in a 2022 civil case caused a default judgment of $513,740 to be entered against him. The businessman, owner of a storage facility in Midway, St. John, is seeking $516,700 in damages for professional negligence and breach of contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to court filings, Prendergast hired Kola after being sued by a former business associate, Ronald Mind, who accused him of failing to properly store certain items. Despite being retained promptly, Kola allegedly failed to file the defence on time and later mishandled an application to set aside the judgment. The application was eventually dismissed due to non-compliance with court orders, leaving the default judgment enforceable against Prendergast.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Kola admitted in writing that he failed in his duties to his client but argued that his actions were protected by long-standing principles of barrister\u2019s immunity, rooted in English common law cases such as Rondel v. Worsley<\/em> and Saif Ali v. Mitchell<\/em>. He further claimed that since he had entered an appearance on behalf of Prendergast, he was \u201cengaged as an advocate in court\u201d under section 20(1)(c) of Antigua and Barbuda\u2019s Legal Profession Act<\/em> and therefore shielded from liability.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Prendergast\u2019s legal team, led by King\u2019s Counsel E. Ann Henry, countered that the Legal Profession Act<\/em> limits immunity strictly to acts performed by an attorney while actively engaged in advocacy before the court \u2014 not to preparatory or administrative work. They argued that Kola\u2019s omissions occurred entirely at the pre-trial stage and fell outside the statute\u2019s narrow protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her 10-page ruling, Justice Drysdale agreed with the claimant\u2019s interpretation. She found that filing an acknowledgment of service or preparing pleadings \u201cis a purely procedural step\u201d and does not constitute advocacy. The judge ruled that immunity cannot arise merely because an attorney is retained or has entered an appearance.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe alleged negligence occurred clearly before any in-court advocacy commenced and is tied to the duties of a solicitor,\u201d Justice Drysdale wrote. She emphasized that the Legal Profession Act<\/em> preserves a functional distinction between advocacy and preparatory work, meaning that only conduct directly connected with in-court proceedings attracts immunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge also cited Lord Diplock\u2019s reasoning in Saif Ali v. Mitchell<\/em>, noting that acts such as advising clients, settling pleadings, or filing defences are \u201cmanifestly\u201d excluded from barrister\u2019s immunity. To extend such protection, she said, would effectively shield attorneys from all pre-trial negligence, a result inconsistent with both statute and precedent.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Kola had also filed a counterclaim accusing Prendergast of defamation, alleging that the businessman made damaging statements about him on Facebook and to a client, calling him dishonest. Prendergast maintains that his statements were true and therefore not defamatory. That issue remains unresolved pending further hearings.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In concluding, Justice Drysdale declared that \u201cthe immunity conferred by section 20(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act<\/em> or at common law does not apply to these proceedings.\u201d The matter was adjourned to November 13, 2025, for a further hearing and determination on costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case \u2014 Patrick Prendergast v. Andrew O. Kola<\/em> (ANUHCV2024\/0018) \u2014 underscores the limits of professional immunity in Antigua and Barbuda\u2019s fused legal system. It establishes that attorneys may be held liable for negligence arising from failures in pre-trial preparation and procedural compliance, even where those failures ultimately affect court outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n